Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You say - no alibi of his was found to be unsound. Again what alibi was found ? Please allude. Or stop making your surmising statements as if they are fact.

As for Ostrog and Druitt they are from one man MM as suspects . In a document which he is relying on memory to refute one sensationalist newspaper article from a couple of weeks previous , on a person most people agree was very unlikely to have been the ripper and never taken very seriously . They are his views and his views alone.

In order to comply with your request, I will rephrase that as:

no alibi of his could have been found to be unsound.

Otherwise, Anderson and Swanson would have been crowing about it.

If Macnaghten was merely expressing his own views, why are his comments about Kosminski taken seriously here, with Macnaghten being cited as evidence that Kosminski was a suspect?

Macnaghten was relying on memory?

And during the interval between his writing of the two versions, he could not check what was actually in police records?

I must say that for someone who objects on principle to the presentation of surmise as fact, you seem not to be applying it to your own surmises.

You have as good as stated that the police checked Kosminski's whereabouts.

How do you know that to be a fact?

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, it seems to me if a sound alibi for, say, Druitt and/or Kosminiski had been established at the time, then neither would be being discussed today (as per Pizer, nobody considers him a viable suspect because the police established he could not be, and we still have that information as well).

Doesn't the fact that both Druitt and Kosminski are listed as better possible suspects than Cutbush by MM indicate that at the time they were listed at least, the police could not have established that they had alibi's? Given the times, establishment of someone's whereabouts at a given time years prior would be no easy task. I believe it took decades to find Druitt's cricket matches after he re-emerged to the public view after all (unless my understanding of the time line for those discoveries is wrong), and even then, there remains a small window of opportunity for him to have made the journey.

Anyway, it seems to me that if the police at the time list someone as a potential JtR, regardless of our own view as to the plausibility of that person being JtR, then that, and that alone, is sufficient to indicate that the police at that time had not found the person to have an alibi. (Ostrog, for example, was not known by the police to have been in jail in Paris, and the fact his whereabouts could not be established indicates they were indeed trying to track him down - why would they ask Paris police if they had him if they were still trying to establish where he was and so probably hadn't come across the point he had gone to France - and Ostrog tended to change his identity a lot, being a conman after all).

As such, to say Person X had an alibi, it requires modern research to uncover and establish that as fact. All it would take, for example, to shut the door on Druitt would be one more piece of evidence that clearly establishes his presence outside of London during the small time window that allows for the possibility for him to travel to London. There's nothing to indicate the police at the time knew of Druitt's cricket schedule, but we do. We might be able to establish that someone had an alibi now, if we're lucky, but it is clear that if the police entertained the notion that someone could have been JtR, no matter how flimsy we may consider their evidence to have been, the one thing we know for certain is that the police had not established an alibi for that person as that would make it impossible.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... it is clear that if the police entertained the notion that someone could have been JtR, no matter how flimsy we may consider their evidence to have been, the one thing we know for certain is that the police had not established an alibi for that person as that would make it impossible.

- Jeff

If Druitt was a police suspect, why did Abberline dismiss the idea that Druitt was the murderer?

If Druitt had no alibis, why did Swanson focus on Kosminski?

If Kosminski was found by police not to have an alibi, why did Abberline focus on Chapman?

If the police did not establish that Druitt and Kosminski had alibis for at least one of the murders, then it was likely because neither was investigated.

Neither man was living completely alone and Druitt could hardly have come and gone whenever he liked.

I ask again: where is the evidence that Druitt's Dorset alibi unravelled - quite apart from evidence that his whereabouts at the times of any of the four later murders could not be ascertained?

Where is the evidence that Kosminski's whereabouts could not be ascertained?

According to Swanson, he was under surveillance.

Where is the evidence that he ever associated with prostitutes?

[Darryl Kenyon]

You have as good as stated that the police checked Kosminski's whereabouts.

How do you know that to be a fact?

I don't know it as a fact but I myself [ you may disagree ] believe that someone who became the chief suspect of Anderson and the man who probably had more knowledge of the murders than anyone else, Swanson. That this persons movements and whereabouts for the Autumn of 1888 would more than likely have been checked out.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't know it as a fact but I myself [ you may disagree ] believe that someone who became the chief suspect of Anderson and the man who probably had more knowledge of the murders than anyone else, Swanson. That this persons movements and whereabouts for the Autumn of 1888 would more than likely have been checked out.

It is a fact that Anderson wrote that he had decided that the murderer was a Polish Jew and that he was being protected by Polish Jews BEFORE Kosminski could have become a suspect and in the absence of any evidence.

It is also a fact, as I have stated three times previously, that the Whitechapel murders case is not the only murder case in which Anderson made those two allegations and, moreover, in the other case, his allegations conflict with the actual evidence.

What does that say about the wisdom of relying on Anderson's claims?

[JeffHamm]

If Druitt was a police suspect, why did Abberline dismiss the idea that Druitt was the murderer?

If Druitt had no alibis, why did Swanson focus on Kosminski?

If Kosminski was found by police not to have an alibi, why did Abberline focus on Chapman?

These are all questions about why someone thought something, which is impossible for any of us to know without asking them, and even then relying on them to be honest and accurate in their responses. But, given Abberline dismissed Druitt, that does tend to indicate that the case against him was not that strong. But just because Mcnaughten had some suspicions against Druitt, and tended to prefer him, he too does not go so far as to say he was sure Druitt was actually JtR - that too tells us that the case against Druitt was much like modern day "solutions" - more the result of a desire to solve the case than as a result of having solved the case.

Regardless, whether or not their ideas were well or poorly justified is irrelevant, though, to the point I was making, which is that if an alibi for someone had been established by the police then that individual would not be listed as a potential JtR by anyone in the police. Therefore, we can be confident in knowing that the police had not established an alibi for any of these individuals.

Now, that doesn't mean their opinions were based upon solid and robust evidence. Many today are firmly convinced that JtR was Person X, despite the fact that when one examines their reasoning it becomes clear that much of it is based upon conjecture, assumption, and confirmation bias. In my view, there is nobody who warrants preference as the information we currently have does not create a trail from the crimes to anyone in particular. Rather, that trail ends in "and out there somewhere was someone who did all this", and suspect oriented theories then tend to pick someone and try to create a trail from that person back to the crimes. And that approach is simply fraught with problems, and the "suspect back to the crime" trail is so very often a convoluted and complex series of speculation to fill in critical gaps, often through quite tortured reasoning.

If the police did not establish that Druitt and Kosminski had alibis for at least one of the murders, then it was likely because neither was investigated.

That may or may not have been the case. Once someone with authority decided either might have been JtR, it seems to me that it is very likely they would have followed up on that. Sadly, none of the records survive, so whether they did or did not is not something we can establish, and so it turns into individual opinions, which obviously can go either way. But all we're doing is comparing our opinions, and between us, we've covered all possible outcomes, either they did or did not investigate these individuals. Our opinions may differ, but the fact remains, we do not know if the police did or did not follow up on their suspicions. To me, it seems odd to suggest they would not have, but I can't point to any objective evidence of such an inestigation, so perhaps you're right, and perhaps I'm right - neither of us knows, though both of us "believe".

Neither man was living completely alone and Druitt could hardly have come and gone whenever he liked.

Why would you think Druitt couldn't come and go whenever he liked? He was a grown man after all.

I ask again: where is the evidence that Druitt's Dorset alibi unravelled - quite apart from evidence that his whereabouts at the times of any of the four later murders could not be ascertained?

Well, obviously, given his whereabouts at the times of the later 4 murders could not be ascertained, he clearly does not have an alibi for those.

As for the Nichols murder, we do not know if the police were aware he was playing cricket, and so was potentially out of town at that time. It appears he only came to police attention after his death (although I think some have suggested they may have been looking for him just before that, but that search may have been related to the fact he was reported missing and be unrelated to the JtR murders). Because of that delay, it may be they did not become aware of his cricket playing at all (and so, in the police view, he didn't have an alibi for that either). Moreover, although we are aware of his cricket match, given that it is possible for him to have travelled back to London, our knowledge of his cricket matches still leaves open an important time window that needs to be shut if we are to view his cricket matches as proving he could not have done it - doesn't matter if that window is small as long as it remains open. Some people are of the view that it is such a small opening that it's not worth consideration, but that's not the case. If, of course, we were investigating this at the time, and had the same issue, all it would take would be to interview other members of his cricket team to determine if they can establish that Druitt did, indeed, remain out of town the whole time, in which case we would have the evidence required to establish a solid alibi for him. But if it turned out one of them instead told us that Druitt had to make a work related trip back to London .... well then we would have evidence to assert his cricket schedule does not provide him with an alibi. But we cannot do that (interview, collect new data), and so we have to leave both possibilities open. And with both open it is erroneous to say that Druitt actually has an alibi due to his cricket - he has a potential alibi, that's true, but it has not been established that it is a solid alibi.

Where is the evidence that Kosminski's whereabouts could not be ascertained?

According to Swanson, he was under surveillance.

Again, if Kosminski's whereabouts were established and exonerated him, then he could not be a police suspect. It would be bizarre if someone on the police said "Yes, I know Kosminski was out of town and he can be placed in Manchester for both the Nichols and Chapman murders, but he was JtR all the same". That makes no sense. Even if those who suspected Kosminski were wrong, and Kosminski wasn't JtR or in any way connected to the crimes, the very fact he was at least in consideration by some of the police tells us that they had not accounted for his whereabouts at the critical times.

Where is the evidence that he ever associated with prostitutes?

To the best of my knowledge there is no surviving record that shows a link between Kosminski and prostitution, but I am also unaware of any surviving evidence that rules out such a link either, so as is so common with JtR, we're in a state of not knowing either way, making both options possible. It is always a bad idea to go from "not knowing" to "deciding it must be this way", it creates a sense of confidence that is unwarranted, and that in turn blinds one to the alternative and still viable possibilities.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

It is a fact that Anderson wrote that he had decided that the murderer was a Polish Jew and that he was being protected by Polish Jews BEFORE Kosminski could have become a suspect and in the absence of any evidence.

It is also a fact, as I have stated three times previously, that the Whitechapel murders case is not the only murder case in which Anderson made those two allegations and, moreover, in the other case, his allegations conflict with the actual evidence.

What does that say about the wisdom of relying on Anderson's claims?

I am more inclined to believe that Swanson was genuine in what he remembered in private notes he wrote and that he believed what he wrote. IE Kosminski was a strong suspect.
That does not mean he was right of course but I believe he was recalling the events as he recollected/saw them...
And since he was central to the investigation I prefer to try and make sense of them. You may otherwise

[Fiver]

Regardless, whether or not their ideas were well or poorly justified is irrelevant, though, to the point I was making, which is that if an alibi for someone had been established by the police then that individual would not be listed as a potential JtR by anyone in the police. Therefore, we can be confident in knowing that the police had not established an alibi for any of these individuals.

I have no doubt you are right when it comes to some of the suspects, but the police probably investigated dozens of suspects. And different suspects were likely investigated by different officers. Those investigations would have been in the records, but few police would have read the conclusions of every investigation, let alone the details. Police who named suspects that they found more likely probably read the full files on those suspects, but they were writing or speaking from memory years later and in many cases their memory can be shown to be in error.

Lets use Michael Ostrog as an example. It is possible that the police didn't find out that he was incarcerated in France. It is also possible that this information was found, but not until after Macnaghton read the file. It's also possible that there never was a file on Ostrog and that it was just Macnaghton's personal theory.

I don't think we can confidently say the police did not establish an alibi for Micheal Ostrog. However, I do think we can confidently say that Macnaghton was unaware of any alibi for him.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am more inclined to believe that Swanson was genuine in what he remembered in private notes he wrote and that he believed what he wrote. IE Kosminski was a strong suspect.
That does not mean he was right of course but I believe he was recalling the events as he recollected/saw them...
And since he was central to the investigation I prefer to try and make sense of them. You may otherwise

I took the liberty of putting one sentence of yours in bold.

If Swanson was recalling events as he recollected them, why did he claim that the identification of Kosminski took place at the Seaside Home and that it coincided with the cessation of the murders, when the Seaside Home did not open until 16 months after the last murder in the series?

If Swanson was recalling events with which he was familiar, why did he claim that Kosminski had to be put under restraint in order to get him to a workhouse, when there is no evidence anywhere, including nearly three decades of asylum records, of Kosminski ever having to be put under restraint or isolated?

If Swanson really knew what happened to Kosminski, why did he claim that he died about 30 years earlier than he did?

If Swanson was really recollecting events, why did he relate that after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, Kosminski was allowed to go home, when in reality he would have been charged with murder before any witness had second thoughts about testifying?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I took the liberty of putting one sentence of yours in bold.

If Swanson was recalling events as he recollected them, why did he claim that the identification of Kosminski took place at the Seaside Home and that it coincided with the cessation of the murders, when the Seaside Home did not open until 16 months after the last murder in the series?

If Swanson was recalling events with which he was familiar, why did he claim that Kosminski had to be put under restraint in order to get him to a workhouse, when there is no evidence anywhere, including nearly three decades of asylum records, of Kosminski ever having to be put under restraint or isolated?

If Swanson really knew what happened to Kosminski, why did he claim that he died about 30 years earlier than he did?

If Swanson was really recollecting events, why did he relate that after being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, Kosminski was allowed to go home, when in reality he would have been charged with murder before any witness had second thoughts about testifying?

Here we go again 1 - He didn't say Kosminski incarceration coincided with the end of the murders. He wrote After the ID no other murders of this kind took place [ a subtle difference ]. As been pointed out in 1888 the police had little idea at all on serial killers . Swanson may have felt that Kosminski could lay dormant for a period of time or until the mania overtook him again [ Anderson alludes to this ]. And as we know now, serial killers can stop for a length of time . What about your theory on a Germanic sailor being the killer. He leaves London then stops, otherwise there would have been a re-ignition in another port, of murders.

2- Swanson says Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back . We do not know the reason for this , perhaps he threatened to do himself harm or perhaps that's when he threatened his sister with a knife . Was Sutcliffe for instance dangerous to others in Broadmoor ? And he was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic

3- I have my own thoughts on this . Kosminski was transferred in 1894 , in 1895 Swanson believed him dead. This wasn't the age of E mail etc Perhaps there was a bureaucratic **** up and that's why he thought Kosminski had died . In the record, Date of Discharge, Removal or Death 19/04/94

4- He was allowed to go home because the witness backtracked on the ID [ that is known ], so they didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Again Anderson alludes to this when he mentions the sweeping powers the french police seemed to possess .

Like I have said countless times. Do I believe Kosminski to be the ripper ? Well I think he is a possible but there are too many holes to say probable . What i am trying to do [ and others ] is maybe fill some of those holes in then we may have a clearer idea .

You on the other hand suggest that it is all mythical what Swanson wrote. A bit like your jacket that Lawende was supposed to have described as being of a type a Sailor would wear, and the GSG being more than likely written by someone with a grasp of the German language, even though it was written in English.

[JeffHamm]

I have no doubt you are right when it comes to some of the suspects, but the police probably investigated dozens of suspects. And different suspects were likely investigated by different officers. Those investigations would have been in the records, but few police would have read the conclusions of every investigation, let alone the details. Police who named suspects that they found more likely probably read the full files on those suspects, but they were writing or speaking from memory years later and in many cases their memory can be shown to be in error.

Lets use Michael Ostrog as an example. It is possible that the police didn't find out that he was incarcerated in France. It is also possible that this information was found, but not until after Macnaghton read the file. It's also possible that there never was a file on Ostrog and that it was just Macnaghton's personal theory.

I don't think we can confidently say the police did not establish an alibi for Micheal Ostrog. However, I do think we can confidently say that Macnaghton was unaware of any alibi for him.

Hi Fiver,

Fair enough, perhaps I should have said that whomever proffered a suspect could not have been aware of an alibi for that suspect. I was working on the assumption that the senior police, so Abberline, Swanson, Macnaghton, Anderson, etc, would be aware of any alibis, and so their own personal ideas would be selected from those for whom alibis were not fully established. However, that is of course an assumption on my part and your presentation is a more sound formulation of the underlying idea. Thanks.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Here we go again

1 - He didn't say Kosminski incarceration coincided with the end of the murders. He wrote After the ID no other murders of this kind took place [ a subtle difference ].


I don't know what makes you think that what you have written invalidates the point I made, which was that Swanson claimed

'that the identification of Kosminski took place at the Seaside Home and that it coincided with the cessation of the murders'

Swanson wrote:

'after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London'

It is obvious that Swanson did mean that the series of murders came to an end shortly before the alleged identification took place and that means that he has the identification taking place in the Seaside Home before it has even opened.


As been pointed out in 1888 the police had little idea at all on serial killers . Swanson may have felt that Kosminski could lay dormant for a period of time or until the mania overtook him again [ Anderson alludes to this ]. And as we know now, serial killers can stop for a length of time . What about your theory on a Germanic sailor being the killer. He leaves London then stops, otherwise there would have been a re-ignition in another port, of murders.


Swanson did not imply that he thought Kosminski could have lain dormant.

He claimed that he was put under 24/7 surveillance and died soon afterwards.

He obviously did not think the thoughts you have attributed to him.


2- Swanson says Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back . We do not know the reason for this , perhaps he threatened to do himself harm or perhaps that's when he threatened his sister with a knife . Was Sutcliffe for instance dangerous to others in Broadmoor ? And he was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic


You are, I fear, evading the issue, which is that there is no evidence that Kosminski was ever put under restraint.

There is no evidence that the knife incident occured 'a very short time' after Kosminski was allegedly identified.


3- I have my own thoughts on this . Kosminski was transferred in 1894 , in 1895 Swanson believed him dead. This wasn't the age of E mail etc Perhaps there was a bureaucratic **** up and that's why he thought Kosminski had died . In the record, Date of Discharge, Removal or Death 19/04/94


I suggest a much more likely explanation is that Swanson did not know what really happened and was not recollecting events at all.


4- He was allowed to go home because the witness backtracked on the ID [ that is known ],


It is not known.

If the witness had identified him, he would certainly have been charged - before the witness had a chance to discover the religion of the suspect.

Blaming a Jew for the fact that no-one was charged is to be expected from Anderson.

This is just one of the many unfounded allegations made by Anderson against Polish Jews in TWO criminal cases - a point I made in my last post but which you somehow became the fourth person to avoid answering.


so they didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Again Anderson alludes to this when he mentions the sweeping powers the french police seemed to possess .


They would have had enough evidence to hold onto him - the incriminating evidence which caused them to suspect him in the first place and without which no identification would have been attempted.

The fact that Anderson claimed that he was already in an asylum and Swanson that he was not even held in custody after the alleged identification gives away the fact that no such evidence ever existed.


Like I have said countless times. Do I believe Kosminski to be the ripper ? Well I think he is a possible but there are too many holes to say probable . What i am trying to do [ and others ] is maybe fill some of those holes in then we may have a clearer idea .


Aaron Kosminski became a 'suspect' only because he was in an asylum.

There is no evidence that he was a suspect prior to his incarceration and no police officer ever alleged that Kosminski / the Polish Jew was a suspect prior to his incarceration.


You on the other hand suggest that it is all mythical what Swanson wrote. A bit like your jacket that Lawende was supposed to have described as being of a type a Sailor would wear, and the GSG being more than likely written by someone with a grasp of the German language, even though it was written in English.


What Anderson and Swanson wrote is very much like a myth.

It is not just that Swanson got Kosminsk's date of death wrong by 30 years, but the fact that his story about the Whitechapel Murderer being transported to the coast from London to be identified by a witness who was also based in London, thereby putting convalescents' welfare at risk, and then, upon being identified as the Whitechapel Murderer, being allowed to go home, is unbelievable.

As I have stated four times before, this is not the only murder case in which Anderson made unfounded allegations against Polish Jews - both of having committed murder and of refusing to cooperate with the police investigating the murders.

Is it not rather curious that whenever I raise this point, there is no response from any of Anderson's defenders?

[Lewis C]

Swanson wrote, "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London". Does this necessarily mean that the identification took place shortly after the MJK murder? Maybe Swanson considered the McKenzie or even the Coles murder to be a murder "of this kind".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Swanson wrote, "And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London". Does this necessarily mean that the identification took place shortly after the MJK murder? Maybe Swanson considered the McKenzie or even the Coles murder to be a murder "of this kind".

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the identification took place much later than the murder of MJK and that Swanson was including McKenzie and possibly Coles in the series.

Aaron Kosminski was incarcerated prior to the murder of Coles, which means that if Swanson considered Coles' murder to be a murder of the same kind, then he was contradicting himself.

Assuming he did not include Coles, even if Swanson meant that the identification took place, as his defenders have suggested, in July 1890 or early February 1891, then that would mean that it took place at least a year or 19 months after what he considered to be the last murder.

If he thought McKenzie's was the last in the series, that would mean that he believed that after the series of five murders in ten weeks, the next and last murder took place eight months later, and that it was significant that when the suspect was identified a year or 19 months later still, no more such murders occurred.

Is that credible?

There is also the fact that Anderson, whose claim about the identification having taken place Swanson was supporting, was definite that McKenzie was not a victim in the series.

That, taken together with his view that the incarceration brought the series to an end, suggests that Anderson had in mind an incarceration taking place around the same time as in Macnaghten's report - i.e. in early 1889.

If Swanson meant that the identification took place in July 1890 or February 1891, and Anderson agreed with him, then Anderson believed that the identification took place either 20 or 27 months after what he considered to be the last murder in the series, with the suspect - assuming their suspects to be the same - incarcerated 27 months after what Anderson believed to be the last murder committed by him.

Does that seem like someone whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum?

[Lewis C]

"No other murder of this kind" might include murders that Swanson thought only had an outside chance of being JtR murders, but still, it does seem that the timing doesn't work well regardless of which murder he considered the last.